Washington - Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said today that if Gadhafi remains in power in Libya, it will damage the prestige of the United States. He compared the possible scenario of Gadhafi staying in power in Tripoli to the U.S. and coalition forces not removing Saddam Hussein during the 1991 Gulf War, though he refused to take a firm stand on whether U.S. military action in Libya was the correct move for the Obama administration. In an exclusive interview on "This Week" with ABC News' Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper, Rumsfeld said, "the fact is we are

We can’t win either way. Either Qadaffi will stay and be a motivated menace, or we’ll continue this “kinetic military action” until Qaffadi is dead, in which case the country will be ‘free’ four about 15 minutes before going tribal and Islamist.

Rumsfeld: If Gadhafi Stays, U.S. Reputation Damaged, American Enemies Emboldened

This is why I was against Obama threatening Gadaffi with military action if he did not step down. All he had to say is "Gadaffi should step down." Period.

It's true we will lose more credibility in the world if we do not put in ground troops, topple Gadaffi, fight the opposition (Al Qaeda / Islamists), occupy and install a new government (A LA Iraq). But now, thanks to Obama and those supported initiating this war with what they call enforcement of a No Fly Zone but is nothing less than an aerial intervention in a civil war , that's where we stand.

Once we get stuck in Libya like we did Iraq... all eyes on Pakistan. I'm sure the protests will increase there next well beyond what we saw in Iraq. We're falling into their plans.

Unfortunately, our enemies will always find a way to be emboldened and they'll attack us AND we will retaliate.

I see no end to the inevitable cycle unless we are willing to give up our Western lifestyle and beliefs. Correction: capitulation to the fanatical Muslims will not work — there are Muslims fighting and killing each other.

Rummy’s right. We probably shouldn’t have gotten involved, but now that we are, the price for not seeing it through would be high. As much as I hate it, that means boots on the ground, probably. I just don’t think we can take him out with airpower alone.

I just don't fracking believe the world that has surrounded me. Enemies are enemies, former 'supposed friends and sympaticos' are now enemies, even some of the FR patriots here are lauding this latest foray into oblivion. WE DO NOT BELONG THERE! We do not need to be helping 'rebels' propped up and directed by Al Qaeda, we do not need to be stopping Muslims from killing Muslims. This dictator has been passable enough, even for Obama, for the last 30 years. What has made the last month any different?

I shudder to think about the next movie yet to be made about a 'Blackhawk Down'........................this is a futile embroglio populated with a cascading sequence of one USA circle-jerk after another. We don't need to be subjecting America's last best hope (its soldiers) to needless exposure like this.

“Princes ought either be indulged or utterly destroyed, for if you merely offend them they take vengeance, but if you injure them greatly they are unable to retaliate, so the the injury done to a Prince ought to be so severe that his vengeance cannot be feared.”

“Better if he stays than have the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda take power.”

Evil no matter which of them takes, or retakes the reins. I’d think that now that it’s confirmed that HE is thought of as quite expendable, that he will dig in, and strike out at everyone, and everything he imagines is after him. He’s probably become quite the paranoic with all of this.

This should have never happened, but it was almost guaranteed with the election of the Marxist in Chief, and the Socialist Democrats to power in 2008, who were already entrenched in the unelected positions, and bureaucracies of our government over many years.

I think we are seeing the Socialist Democrats in their Normandy invasion of our beaches, but I don’t see an Eisenhower in charge anywhere.

There might be hope.

27
posted on 03/27/2011 12:55:31 PM PDT
by rockinqsranch
(Dems, Libs, Socialists, call 'em what you will, they ALL have fairies livin' in their trees.)

I am beginning to understand how Rumsfeld got us into Iraq. Some people have tunnel vision. Rumsfeld has Munich vision, whereby every anti-American non-nuclear dictator of an oil-producing country that we can defeat who remains standing is a Hitler in the making, and we would have to be isolationists to avoid toppling him.

I've always thought that our real problem in the run-up to WWII wasn't our refusal to attack Berlin as soon as Germany occupied Czechoslovakia. It was the fact that we had spent 1% of national output on defense (compared to at least 4% since the end of WWII) for the two decades since the end of WWI, meaning that we had the crappiest weapons of all the belligerents, with the exception of our aircraft carriers and battleships, and the smallest army (at 100,000 men), compared to the millions of troops each of the Axis powers had mobilized. That unreadiness for war (and the fact that we were fighting major industrial powers who made their own warships, artillery and tanks, not industrial pygmies like Iraq and Libya) was what cost us dearly in the initial stages of the war, not our refusal to attempt to bomb Berlin on the day after Hitler annexed the Sudetenland. In truth, even if all 100,000 of our troops had been in France during the Phony War, they would probably have accompanied British forces out of France during the Dunkirk evacuation - they were certainly beaten by Japanese troops far inferior (in terms of equipment and tactics) to the German forces that overran Western Europe like a knife through butter.

Today's America is radically different. We spend more on defense than all of our allies and adversaries put together. In this respect, we are mirroring our spending during WWII, wherein we put out more hardware than our allies and adversaries combined. If you're an industrial pygmy like Libya, every battle matters, because deterring adversaries depends less on your (laughable) capability to inflict losses than your sheer pugnacity. If you're Uncle Sam, with the best hardware and the most equipment, nobody (except a drooling retard like bin Laden, who has never and will never be able to conquer these United States) will write you off no matter how many battles you decide not to fight. We've slaughtered tens of thousands of al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. It's time to declare an end to the punitive expeditions (and I think that's all they should have been - this nation-building* stuff was what comprised most of the $1.2T we invested there) and leave.

* Plus - we're not really building nations in America's image - we're subsidizing sharia states in Iraq and Afghanistan.

30
posted on 03/27/2011 1:03:16 PM PDT
by Zhang Fei
(Let us pray that peace be now restored to the world and that God will preserve it always)

The U.S. should get out of Libya and let the cards fall where they may. That would likely mean that Gaddafi remains in power. That is preferable to the Muslim Brotherhood or al-Qaida. All Obama needs to say is that "I was wrong", though that may be asking too much.

I am astounded by the series of conservatives from Rumsfeld to Bolton to Palin who are calling for Gaddafi's ouster with not a word about the Brotherhood.

Does Rumsfeld think that if we fight shoulder to shoulder with al Quida in Libya to defeat Gadhafi that al Quida will then become our buddies and be nice to us in other parts of the world? We are on the wrong side in Libya and we should admit it and either help Gadhafi defeat the al Quida and Muslim Brotherhood backed jihadists, or just get out.

Very few will fight for Ghadaffi if they know US and most of NATO wants him out, but he isnt the type you cross and then talk it over at his tent.

Just like how very few fought for Saddam once they knew that the US and most of NATO wanted him out? 4,400 dead GI's later, we're discovering that those "very few" can create a lot of widows and orphans stateside. Rumsfeld is an outstanding American - his problem is one that has saddled policy-makers for decades - he has Munich version, a subset of tunnel vision in which every dictator is Hitler (never mind that Hitler ruled over the No. 2 industrial power - which it had been for decades - in the world), meaning that every foreign country's security problem is also America's problem.

36
posted on 03/27/2011 1:32:19 PM PDT
by Zhang Fei
(Let us pray that peace be now restored to the world and that God will preserve it always)

Easily spoken by one who has no “skin in it”, (as all the other “exempts” as in Vampire-Care, “bank” bail-giveaway, QE, govt. raises, govt. “education” loans, and on and on). And how about North Korea Donald?

I agree with everything you have said. Madness is all around us. Everyone speaks of sending our troops into yet another danger zone as if it were all just another video game.

We have yet to understand why a ruler who was working with us against Al Queda suddenly became worthy of assassination. And “humanitarianism” is a joke of an answer.
I’m sure once we find out what is really going on, it will be too late.

People who get “whacked” by the Mafia usually get it because they know too much. I wonder..........?

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.